11/1 World Series Game 6 Cubs (Arrieta) @ Cleveland (Tomlin) 7:00 CDT Fox

[UMFan83]

More concern about West, I just read that he almost never calls the low strike, and the Cubs are really good at getting the low strike called. Conversely, he more frequently calls strikes in the higher part of the zone, and Perez is really good at getting high strikes called.

[Tracer Bullet]

This game is functionally tied with game 7 2003. Both were "win and you are 50/50 to win the WS, lose and you are 0."

 

that's just dumb. today is "win today and you can win the world series tomorrow." none of us has seen that. arguing that Game 6 of the WS is equivalent to Game 7 of an NLCS makes no sense at all. but you do you.

[Tracer Bullet]

More concern about West, I just read that he almost never calls the low strike, and the Cubs are really good at getting the low strike called. Conversely, he more frequently calls strikes in the higher part of the zone, and Perez is really good at getting high strikes called.

 

I'm not sure that hurts so much with Jake, as opposed to Hendricks or even Lester who loves that low outside corner to RHs. And frankly, if not calling a low strike means Bryant and Baez will stop fishing at low breaking balls, then I'm all for it. Throw a bunch of high curve balls to KB. Be my guest.

[David]

This game is functionally tied with game 7 2003. Both were "win and you are 50/50 to win the WS, lose and you are 0."

 

that's just dumb. today is "win today and you can win the world series tomorrow." none of us has seen that. arguing that Game 6 of the WS is equivalent to Game 7 of an NLCS makes no sense at all. but you do you.

 

yeah, it's kind of like the argument that came up when i said i would take being 3 straight wins away from winning the WS every year, and people brought up that the pre-season odds may have been a smidge higher.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This game is functionally tied with game 7 2003. Both were "win and you are 50/50 to win the WS, lose and you are 0."

 

that's just dumb. today is "win today and you can win the world series tomorrow." none of us has seen that. arguing that Game 6 of the WS is equivalent to Game 7 of an NLCS makes no sense at all. but you do you.

 

In emotional terms or whatever, sure.

 

But in terms of championship utility, there is no difference between a 50% chance to win a 7-game series and a 50% chance to win game 7.

[Butterscup]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[minnesotacubsfan]

This game is functionally tied with game 7 2003. Both were "win and you are 50/50 to win the WS, lose and you are 0."

 

that's just dumb. today is "win today and you can win the world series tomorrow." none of us has seen that. arguing that Game 6 of the WS is equivalent to Game 7 of an NLCS makes no sense at all. but you do you.

 

well, if you completely take out the human elements and drown out the excitement in pharmaceuticals or rely only on numbers divorced of context, then yeah, they might be somewhat equal. maybe.

[Banedon]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

In your face, UMFan!

[David]

This game is functionally tied with game 7 2003. Both were "win and you are 50/50 to win the WS, lose and you are 0."

 

that's just dumb. today is "win today and you can win the world series tomorrow." none of us has seen that. arguing that Game 6 of the WS is equivalent to Game 7 of an NLCS makes no sense at all. but you do you.

 

In emotional terms or whatever, sure.

 

But in terms of championship utility, there is no difference between a 50% chance to win a 7-game series and a 50% chance to win game 7.

 

there are a lot of differences, actually. every moment in that game 7 is much higher leverage. while that's the same for both participants, it's still a hell of a lot different. and more was accomplished and banked to get to that point.

[squally1313]

More concern about West, I just read that he almost never calls the low strike, and the Cubs are really good at getting the low strike called. Conversely, he more frequently calls strikes in the higher part of the zone, and Perez is really good at getting high strikes called.

 

I'm not sure that hurts so much with Jake, as opposed to Hendricks or even Lester who loves that low outside corner to RHs. And frankly, if not calling a low strike means Bryant and Baez will stop fishing at low breaking balls, then I'm all for it. Throw a bunch of high curve balls to KB. Be my guest.

 

Yeah, the Indians lefties thinking they may have to swing on that slider/cutter up and in on the hands would be a big advantage for us. And absolutely agreed on Tomlin trying to get a bunch of high strikes against pretty much all of this lineup.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This game is functionally tied with game 7 2003. Both were "win and you are 50/50 to win the WS, lose and you are 0."

 

that's just dumb. today is "win today and you can win the world series tomorrow." none of us has seen that. arguing that Game 6 of the WS is equivalent to Game 7 of an NLCS makes no sense at all. but you do you.

 

well, if you completely take out the human elements and drown out the excitement in pharmaceuticals or rely only on numbers divorced of context, then yeah, they might be somewhat equal. maybe.

 

Sometimes I have trouble telling people apart if they have similar haircuts

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

that's just dumb. today is "win today and you can win the world series tomorrow." none of us has seen that. arguing that Game 6 of the WS is equivalent to Game 7 of an NLCS makes no sense at all. but you do you.

 

In emotional terms or whatever, sure.

 

But in terms of championship utility, there is no difference between a 50% chance to win a 7-game series and a 50% chance to win game 7.

 

there are a lot of differences, actually. every moment in that game 7 is much higher leverage. while that's the same for both participants, it's still a hell of a lot different. and more was accomplished and banked to get to that point.

 

How many different ways do you want me to say "the probability of winning the title is the same but they obviously feel different"?

[minnesotacubsfan]

This game is functionally tied with game 7 2003. Both were "win and you are 50/50 to win the WS, lose and you are 0."

 

that's just dumb. today is "win today and you can win the world series tomorrow." none of us has seen that. arguing that Game 6 of the WS is equivalent to Game 7 of an NLCS makes no sense at all. but you do you.

 

In emotional terms or whatever, sure.

 

But in terms of championship utility, there is no difference between a 50% chance to win a 7-game series and a 50% chance to win game 7.

 

huh? one is the ws, the other lcs. winning a game 7 lcs does not automatically = to winning a ws, or even 50% chance of doing so.

[David]

 

that's just dumb. today is "win today and you can win the world series tomorrow." none of us has seen that. arguing that Game 6 of the WS is equivalent to Game 7 of an NLCS makes no sense at all. but you do you.

 

well, if you completely take out the human elements and drown out the excitement in pharmaceuticals or rely only on numbers divorced of context, then yeah, they might be somewhat equal. maybe.

 

Sometimes I have trouble telling people apart if they have similar haircuts

 

or play the same positions

[KatJ]

Seriously though, I really hope that if we were to lose its in Game 7 not Game 6. I want to feel that nervous energy all day knowing that my team can win a championship that evening. Plus I've never been able to watch a Cubs game on my birthday before. Just get it to game 7 please please please.

 

There's Cub baseball in November! How awesome is that?! I don't want it to end.

[Tracer Bullet]

 

In emotional terms or whatever, sure.

 

But in terms of championship utility, there is no difference between a 50% chance to win a 7-game series and a 50% chance to win game 7.

 

there are a lot of differences, actually. every moment in that game 7 is much higher leverage. while that's the same for both participants, it's still a hell of a lot different. and more was accomplished and banked to get to that point.

 

How many different ways do you want me to say "the probability of winning the title is the same but they obviously feel different"?

 

none. i don't think anyone wants you to say that or ever wanted you to say that

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

that's just dumb. today is "win today and you can win the world series tomorrow." none of us has seen that. arguing that Game 6 of the WS is equivalent to Game 7 of an NLCS makes no sense at all. but you do you.

 

well, if you completely take out the human elements and drown out the excitement in pharmaceuticals or rely only on numbers divorced of context, then yeah, they might be somewhat equal. maybe.

 

Sometimes I have trouble telling people apart if they have similar haircuts

 

I can believe that. I mean, I'm bald and I get mistaken for Yul Brynner all the freaking time

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

there are a lot of differences, actually. every moment in that game 7 is much higher leverage. while that's the same for both participants, it's still a hell of a lot different. and more was accomplished and banked to get to that point.

 

How many different ways do you want me to say "the probability of winning the title is the same but they obviously feel different"?

 

none. i don't think anyone wants you to say that or ever wanted you to say that

 

I didn't ask you because I have absolutely zero interest in your preferences about what I say.

[David]

 

How many different ways do you want me to say "the probability of winning the title is the same but they obviously feel different"?

 

none. i don't think anyone wants you to say that or ever wanted you to say that

 

I didn't ask you because I have absolutely zero interest in your preferences about what I say.

 

you asked the question and got the answer

[KatJ]

schwarber's going to be demanding fellatio after all his killer at bats

 

You offering? ;-)

[Tracer Bullet]

This game is functionally tied with game 7 2003. Both were "win and you are 50/50 to win the WS, lose and you are 0."

 

that's just dumb. today is "win today and you can win the world series tomorrow." none of us has seen that. arguing that Game 6 of the WS is equivalent to Game 7 of an NLCS makes no sense at all. but you do you.

 

In emotional terms or whatever, sure.

 

But in terms of championship utility, there is no difference between a 50% chance to win a 7-game series and a 50% chance to win game 7.

 

the difference in championship utility (which is a phrase i can't believe is even being used here but w/e) is that a win today means we have to win 1 more game. the functional difference in probabilities is all the other horsefeathers that had an X% chance of happening to put the Cubs within 2 wins of a WS title happened and we came out the other side. The difference between Game 7 of the NLCS giving you a 50% chance of winning the WS and Game 7 of the WS giving you a 50% chance of winning the WS is YOU ONLY HAVE TO WIN 1 MORE GAME. If the Cubs are playing tomorrow, it means they actually won 3 games in the WS and have a 50% chance of winning the 4th, which is meaningfully different than having a 50% chance of winning 4/7.

 

THIS IS SO horsefeathering STUPID WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS

[KatJ]

Guys, tomorrow is my birthday. All i want is Cubs dong after Cubs dong, a game six victory, and several more Cubs dongs on Wednesday, leading up to a 17-0 stress free game 7 victory and our first world series in 108 years. Doesn't seem like a lot to ask.

 

Who needs Christmas gifts after that?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Ok, then I'll just triple down out of spite. The probability is still the same.

 

If we were ranking by championship leverage, a generic LCS game 7 would be exactly the same as a generic WS game 6 while down 3-2

[Tracer Bullet]

 

How many different ways do you want me to say "the probability of winning the title is the same but they obviously feel different"?

 

none. i don't think anyone wants you to say that or ever wanted you to say that

 

I didn't ask you because I have absolutely zero interest in your preferences about what I say.

 

if you wanted a personal response from david, you should have sent a pm. otherwise, don't ask stupid questions if you don't want to hear the answer.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

none. i don't think anyone wants you to say that or ever wanted you to say that

 

I didn't ask you because I have absolutely zero interest in your preferences about what I say.

 

if you wanted a personal response from david, you should have sent a pm. otherwise, don't ask stupid questions if you don't want to hear the answer.

 

Don't spaz out when people have the audacity to frame subjective questions differently than you would.